There have been people on both sides of the Climate Change issue claiming that the other side is just plain wrong. It is difficult to know who to trust.
I think the only thing that everyone agrees on is that the climate is changing. Everything changes. Change is the natural state of things. If anyone disagrees, and thinks the climate is not changing, please let me know - I'm willing to listen.
So - if we can all agree that the climate is changing, the next question is: How and why is it changing? Well, I guess that is two questions.
Let's take them one at at time. How is the climate changing? Most say the climate is warming. This is a global phenomenon. Based upon the Summer I just experienced, my personal empirical evidence cannot support a global warming trend. But, I can say we had a very wet Summer in New York, this season past. I have acquaintances in Europe who have insisted that we are lucky to be warming, because otherwise we would already be slipping into another ice-age. Yet we see evidence of large quantities of ice melting - and poor polar bears swimming for their lives. From a polar bear's perspective, this warming trend would seem less than ideal.
The second part of the question - they "why" part - is fueling many a flame war in cyberspace (for those still new to this sort of jargon - I mean people are screaming ugly things at one another via online means). Some argue that this warming trend is natural, and we cannot contribute to it significantly enough, one way or the other, for us to care about our actions. Others insist that this warming trend is in fact a man-made phenomenon which our industrial societies are directly responsible for. In the middle, there are various opinions using the arguments of each side of the debate as a smorgasbord to fill their opinion plates.
How much of what you believe about this issue is convenient for you? Regardless of the truth - let's assume there is a truth for a moment, and put that on the side. Let us assume for a moment that your opinion is not based on the truth, but actually based upon a personal need. What would that need be? Let me give a few examples.
You could believe what you do about the issue of climate change because you have a need to feel the joy of being a part of something, such as a political party. Perhaps your personal identity is intertwined with a group that you see as a symbol of strength in you life. Certainly, your identity is more important to you than whether a polar bear has to walk or swim to work every day.
Maybe you believe what you do about the issue of climate change because you fear something. If you believe that we are responsible for global warming, perhaps you believe that because you are afraid of acknowledging that there is nothing we can do, and a great multitude of us will be doomed. Or, perhaps you believe that we have nothing to do with global warming because you fear that if you acknowledge that our actions are causing the problem, your standard of living will change. Certainly, your fears are more important to you than whether or not some tribe in Africa's water supply has dried up and they have started killing their neighbors for water.
Maybe you care about the truth. Maybe that is actually what is important to you. Perhaps, you care about the truth because you have a need to be right. You don't actually care about the polar bear, or the Africans, or the ice-caps; but, the ability to lord the truth over your neighbor rules your ego.
As for me - to be perfectly honest. I don't know. I don't know who to trust, because it seems there are gains attached to the "truth". I see politicians who want to convince me that all of this is the fault of our way of living. I'm watching them put more and more legislation together to remove more and more of my liberties. For example, the Cap and Trade bill (aka Cap and Tax) actually has provisions in it for the government to send inspectors into our homes to check on the types of light-bulbs, water-heaters, toilets, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. All in the name of forcing us to "retrofit" our houses with "government-approved" versions of these appliances. There is no way the government would be able to pass such a law, and assume such power, if humans were not responsible for this global warming trend. However, this bill has already passed the House, and is in the Senate right now.
On the other side, we have those who clearly profit from a belief that we are in no way responsible for global warming. Corporations can save untold amounts of money through relaxed environmental regulations. Some will argue, that those who put forth the argument that global warming is a myth - or at least that we are not responsible for it, are profiting directly from such Industrial entities whose profits go up when regulations go down.
When people have something to gain - be it an internal function of who they are or who their ego thinks they are - or an overt power play for control by organizations both governmental and commercial, how can we be sure that the "truth" we are buying into is actual reality and not just a convenience? I don't think it is a coincidence that we have a traditional order of the values of Life, Liberty, and Property (or the pursuit of happiness if you prefer). I think that short list is in a proper priority level. However, the growing complexity of our society makes it difficult to see what should be plain truths.
I can't believe such a bill is even being considered let alone passing the House. I think this government has and is taking things way too far.
ReplyDeleteAs far as to weather there is global warming or not. I say there is or the ice caps would not be melting. It's a horrible thing to see the polar pears floating away and then swimming for their lives. I think we do need to change our ways, but it's not the responsibility of the government to make those choices for us. Making manufacturers change they way they make things maybe. But we need to have the choice as to what type of toilet we want in our homes!
Thanks for the comments. In case the issue wasn't confusing enough, let me throw out that I heard a rumor that the polar bear population is currently at an all-time high. If anyone can confirm that with a link, it would be greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we have allowed our government to run amuck. However, I would caution against putting too much faith in governmental regulations. What we really need is a more educated and informed population with the courage to refuse to buy a product, if the company that is making it is polluting.
I think we are ultimately falling prey to our own apathy, and our unwillingness to expend effort to understand our changing world.
Nice post, interesting perspective. I'm really not sure either, but I'm erring on the side that global warming is not man-induced. But whether it is or not, America needs to ask if it is worth having so many regulations in place to effect global warming, how much? Maybe this is some super crisis and we're all going to die tomorrow, or maybe it's real, but negligible. Either way, I feel like carbon credits and what not are people shooting each other in the foot. I do very much believe that humans have harmed the environment, and I'm not sure if and what regulation should exist there. I just have a hard time believing that some of the greenest groups are more for something like stopping camp fires over keeping the millions of plastic bags from being lost in the wind, and ending up who knows where. This is a touchy issue though. It goes both ways, with power hungry people on either side. The carbon-free side might be right, and the lets-dump-as-much-carbon-as-possible,-it-doesn't-matter side could be right. I think the carbon-free group needs to ask whether the difference to the environment is negligible, and how much they could really make a difference. The carbon-free side actually reminds me of people on Twitter "fighting cancer" by typing in #beatcancer and having a penny donated (or is it more? I'm not sure) to research companies that don't realize that in many societies a hundred years ago, there was _no cancer_. I won't say what the cure is or should be, just that there probably isn't some magic bullet solution to a broad problem. Who knows, if the US becomes carbon-phobic, companies might move overseas to some carbon nation with less environmental controls and really damage the environment, but over things like mercury, plastics, and what not. The carbon dumpers at least need to recognize what is easy to see happening to the environment. They need to realize that wrapping their products 10x more than they need to is 10x more that ends up in the landfills, if it isn't recycled. They need to realize that there are real hazards in the things many of them use; it's not just carbon, the base of life that could possibly do any harm. Anyways, great post. I'll subscribe to your RSS feed, for sure :-).
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, and welcome to The Written Idea. I agree, this is a touchy topic. One of the largest issues is actually having good data to make decisions from. It would be great if we had several "spare planet Earths" to experiment on. The datasets we use to make up our minds about climate change would seem to be uncontrolled. By that, I mean that there are many factors that can impact the global temperature besides carbon. Thanks again for the comment. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this topic.
ReplyDelete